About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
overseas. in terms of our foreign policy. if we need to keep doing that and we have to keep doing it. we have to tell the american people how bloody and how long this war is going to be. this has nothing to do with gender equality or elections. it has to do with waging war against people believe to be interfering with their land and their faith. lou: thank you both for being with us. >> thank you, sir. lou: up next, the markets recover after yesterday's massive sell-off. we will show you why here next. ♪ @ ♪ lou: stocks recovered from the biggest 1-day sell-off of this year on encouraging news on housing. joining us now, a senior u.s. economist for deutsche bank securities. this is a pretty impressive performance today. is it convincing enough hat we are going to see more strength on the days ahead? >> it certainly has been impressive as a performance. i think a lot of the movement we saw today was just to recover from the massive sell-off yesterday when the news of the tragedy in boston struck. stocks went into a sharp nosedive. the news that it was a relatively limited event
plitations for civil liberties questions, potentially foreign policy questions. i want to listen for a second to president bush after 9/11 just as a reminder where we were as we talked about what happened in that moment. let's take a listen. >> on september 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. our war on terror begins without data. but it does not end there. it will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. [ applause ] >> so this set out the parameters,ary that we have been working under for the past decade or more. >> yeah. that was the global war on terror. there was a big gap between that rhetoric we just heard and the legal authority that the president actually had, which under the 2001 authorization of force was to only pursue al qaeda, the taliban and groups directly found responsible for 9/11. we'll continue to have that legal friction both on civil liberties and foreign policy questions. the first instinct to combat is that people are rightfully outraged at these killers. part of what they want to do is
not only a lost opportunity domestically. the foreign policy of this also. the most interesting thing that reagan did early on in foreign policy was the air traffic controller strike and toughness at times at home have repercussions aboeroad. this story got lost because of the boston bombings. >> but helps new awax. you only have to send that message once or twice to have one person go back and go, he is crazy. you know what he just told me? he said he was going to destroy me. >> what the president, what president obama, for reasons not only to him and his nature, clearly does not do or cannot do is something that lyndon johnson did do and this story has been repeated too many times for it not to be apockrifal. frank church a senator from idaho opposed senator johnson on an element of vietnam policy and another senator, i forget which one, wanted a line in an appropriations bill for a dam in his state. and he was on the fence with regard to lyndon johnson's view on vietnam policy. he called the president specifically asking, i need this. kou help me get it? and the president of the un
of charges that becomes a big foreign policy problem. that's one of the reasons why the state department was so opposed to the waterboarding under colin powell. >> exactly. to have it labeled -- so then you get into the territory of were crimes committed? and what kind of future implications there are for that. >> briefly, before i let you go. we do want to talk about it in more detail, the book. the appreciate now to move the program from the cia back to where many say it afc belonged in the military where there could be more oversight. what you've uncovered is the extent of secret relationships with pakistan, things that have never been reported, never been revealed, i guess, to other than the intel gens community? >> i think when you look at the history of the secret war since 9/11, there's so much that's gone on in the shadows that we have not known about and not certainly told to the public or told to congress. as you said, pressure is building to become more transparent. president obama set in the state of the union there would be more transparency, and we'll see what happens. >> t
unwavering in her support of president reagan. just the foreign- policy support. famously, they both worked to sort of speak half-truths about the unsustainability of the soviet union, something that coincided with the placing of the soviet union under its own contradiction. some will tell you it was almost like moses parting the red sea. i don't think it was quite that. but clearly, the truth telling was not irrelevant. hope tonor ms. dissidents working behind the eastern bloc. domestically, they had a -- theyusly important were trying something very radical. they wanted a break with the economic policies of the past. the fact that they were not isolated, they could point to someone on the other side of the ocean in charge of this was important. that made quite a difference. you can see in the tributes paid to lady thatcher, people who work closely to president reagan saying it made a difference. he is not on his own. there is an impressive leader in europe who shares his ideas. host: was it vice versa for her in britain? guest: it was. famously, they got along well. but there were differe
. and really at the heart of it is the fact that one of obama's enduring legacies when it comes to foreign policy, he has solidified assassination as an essential component of policy. >> they can do it in the shadows, as you pointed out. in the book, i would say there hasn't been a lot of public resistance aside from people like you and others in the press. how have they done this without facing much resistance? publicly or inside the government from people who should be stepping up and saying, wait a minute, we can't kill u.s. citizens without due process? >> right, i think there's no question that if john mccain had won the election in 2008 or mitt romney had won it in 2012 that liberals would be screaming about this stuff and saying, you know, that -- there would be this thing, war crimes, we should do impeachment and the reality is that i think a lot of people -- and i think this is sincere. a lot of people so fed up with the iraq war, perceived as the sort of crimes of the bush administration they wanted it to end and the obama administration has sold people a bill of goods. the idea
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)